Word frequency distribution is important for cross-situational word learning. Previous studies mainly investigated cross-situational word learning based on the uniform distribution. However, word frequency distribution usually follows the Zipfian distribution, a type of skewed distribution, in reality. Previous studies have relatively ignored cross-situational word learning based on skewed distributions, such as the Zipfian distribution. Few studies that focus on the skewed distribution have fierce controversies about whether the Zipfian distribution improves or inhibits cross-situational word learning.
Therefore, the present review first proposes a macro perspective of cross-situational word learning, which holds that the learning effect of each vocabulary is dependent on the learning effects of other vocabularies in the same learning environment. From the macro perspective, the present review first proposes the skewed learning advantage effect that is based on the mutual exclusivity strategy. Mutual exclusivity strategy refers to the following word learning methods. Specifically, learners assume that no two words have the same meaning. Then, learners eliminate the meaning competition of new words from the matching hypotheses that are established according to the co-occurrence law through the anchor point of the acquired words, thereby reducing the meaning ambiguity of the new words.
The skewed learning advantage effect believes that the effective use of mutual exclusivity strategy is the key to generate the Zipfian frequency promotion effect. Specifically, in the Zipfian distribution, learners can quickly learn high-frequency words. Then, learners make the learned high-frequency words as anchor points and use mutual exclusivity strategy to reduce the meaning ambiguity of new words. Thus, learners reduce the number of matching hypotheses in the memory system, thereby reducing the memory burden and improving the efficiency of cross-situational word learning. Moreover, if learners can repeatedly use the mutual exclusivity strategy, they may quickly learn multiple words, which is named word spurt. More importantly, the Zipfian distribution provides more opportunities for learners to use the mutual exclusivity strategy.
To further explain the mechanism of mutual exclusivity strategy and develop the skewed learning advantage effect. The present review examines the influence of language learning history, participant age, and situational ambiguity on the use of the mutual exclusivity strategy, as well as the word learning effect. The findings of some important studies suggest that these factors can influence the tendency of learners to establish matching hypotheses. For example, monolinguals are more likely to establish a one-to-one word-meaning matching hypothesis than bilinguals, while bilinguals are better at establishing and maintaining multiple matching hypotheses. Therefore, learners of different language learning histories have different tendencies of establishing matching hypotheses, resulting in different mechanisms of using mutual exclusivity strategy. In addition, different language learning histories contribute to the skewed learning advantage through different mechanisms.
To sum up, the present review firstly systematically reviews the studies of cross-situational word learning in the Zipfian distribution and explores the mechanism of word frequency distribution. Secondly, based on the mutual exclusivity strategy, the present review proposes the skewed learning advantage effect to respond to the controversy of previous studies. Finally, the present review develops the skewed learning advantage effect by deconstructing the mechanism of the mutual exclusivity strategy. In future research, how related factors, such as syntax, Chinese corpus, and social cues, influence skewed learning is another important question that needs to be investigated.
Key words
cross-situational word learning /
language learning /
macro-learning perspective /
skewed learning /
mutual exclusivity strategy /
word spurt
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.title}}
{{custom_sec.content}}
References
[1] Bassani, H. F., & Araujo, A. F. R. (2019). A neural network architecture for learning word-referent associations in multiple contexts. Neural Networks, 117, 249-267.
[2] Benitez V. L., Yurovsky D., & Smith L. B. (2016). Competition between multiple words for a referent in cross-situational word learning. Journal of Memory and Language, 90, 31-48.
[3] Bloom, P. (2001). Précis of how children learn the meanings of words. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24(6), 1095-1103.
[4] Blythe R. A., Smith K., & Smith, A. D. M. (2010). Learning times for large lexicons through cross-situational learning. Cognitive Science, 34(4), 620-642.
[5] Bunce, J. P., & Scott, R. M. (2017). Finding meaning in a noisy world: Exploring the effects of referential ambiguity and competition on 2·5-year-olds’ cross-situational word learning. Journal of Child Language, 44(3), 650-676.
[6] Clark E. V.(2009). First language acquisition. Cambridge University Press..
[7] Fitneva, S. A., & Christiansen, M. H. (2017). Developmental changes in cross-situational word learning: The inverse effect of initial accuracy. Cognitive Science, 41(1), 141-161.
[8] Frank M. C., Goodman N. D., & Tenenbaum J. B. (2009). Using speakers' referential intentions to model early cross-situational word learning. Psychological Science, 20(5), 578-585.
[9] Hadley, E. B., & Dickinson, D. K. (2019). Cues for word-learning during shared book-reading and guided play in preschool. Journal of Child Language, 46(6), 1202-1227.
[10] Hendrickson, A. T., & Perfors, A. (2019). Cross-situational learning in a Zipfian environment. Cognition, 189, 11-22.
[11] Hu, C. F. (2017). Resolving referential ambiguity across ambiguous situations in young foreign language learners. Applied Psycholinguistics, 38(3), 633-656.
[12] Kan, P. F., & Sadagopan, N. (2015). Speech practice effects on bilingual children's fast mapping performance. Seminars in Speech and Language, 36(2), 109-119.
[13] Kurumada C., Meylan S. C., & Frank M. C. (2013). Zipfian frequency distributions facilitate word segmentation in context. Cognition, 127(3), 439-453.
[14] Lavi-Rotbain, O., & Arnon, I. (2019). Children learn words better in low entropy. Proceedings of the 41st Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Cognitive Science Society.
[15] Lavi-Rotbain, O., & Arnon, I. (2020). The learnability consequences of Zipfian distributions: Word segmentation is facilitated in more predictable distributions. PsychArchives.
[16] Lavi-Rotbain, O., & Arnon, I. (2021). Visual statistical learning is facilitated in Zipfian distributions. Cognition, 206, Article 104492.
[17] Lestrade, S. (2017). Unzipping Zipf' s law. PLoS ONE, 12(8), Article e0181987.
[18] MacDonald K., Yurovsky D., & Frank M. C. (2017). Social cues modulate the representations underlying cross-situational learning. Cognitive Psychology, 94, 67-84.
[19] Mak M. H. C., Hsiao Y., & Nation K. (2021). Anchoring and contextual variation in the early stages of incidental word learning during reading. Journal of Memory and Language, 118, Article 104203.
[20] Mulak K. E., Vlach H. A., & Escudero P. (2019). Cross-situational learning of phonologically overlapping words across degrees of ambiguity. Cognitive Science, 43(5), Article e12731.
[21] Poepsel, T. J., & Weiss, D. J. (2016). The influence of bilingualism on statistical word learning. Cognition, 152, 9-19.
[22] Qu J., Hu L., Liu X., Dong J., Yang R., & Mei L. (2021). The contributions of the left hippocampus and bilateral inferior parietal lobule to form-meaning associative learning. Psychophysiology, 58(8), Article e13834.
[23] Reisenauer R., Smith K., & Blythe R. A. (2013). Stochastic dynamics of lexicon learning in an uncertain and nonuniform world. Physical Review Letters, 110(25), Article 258701.
[24] Repnik K. M., Chondrogianni V., & Sorace A. (2021). Linking disambiguation and retention in a developmental eye-tracking study with monolingual and multilingual children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 206, Article 105072.
[25] Roembke, T. C., & McMurray, B. (2021). Multiple components of statistical word learning are resource dependent: Evidence from a dual-task learning paradigm. Memory and Cognition, 49(5), 984-997.
[26] Schuler K. D., Reeder P. A., Newport E. L., & Aslin R. N. (2017). The effect of Zipfian frequency variations on category formation in adult artificial language learning. Language Learning and Development, 13(4), 357-374.
[27] Trueswell J. C., Medina T. N., Hafri A., & Gleitman L. R. (2013). Propose but verify: Fast mapping meets cross-situational word learning. Cognitive Psychology, 66(1), 126-156.
[28] Tsuji S., Jincho N., Mazuka R., & Cristia A. (2020). Communicative cues in the absence of a human interaction partner enhance 12-month-old infants' word learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 191, Article 104740.
[29] Vlach, H. A., & DeBrock, C. A. (2017). Remember dax? Relations between children’s cross-situational word learning, memory, and language abilities. Journal of Memory and Language, 93, 217-230.
[30] Vogt, P. (2012). Exploring the robustness of cross-situational learning under Zipfian distributions. Cognitive Science, 36(4), 726-739.
[31] Zettersten, M., & Saffran, J. R. (2021). Sampling to learn words: Adults and children sample words that reduce referential ambiguity. Developmental Science, 24(3), Article e13064.
[32] Zipf G. K.(1949). Human behavior and the principle of least effort: An introduction to human ecology. Addison-Wesley Press.
PDF(984 KB)
